Legislation that will “embarrass” the State of Arizona?

What might that be, SB1070, HB2291, SB1062? Or could it be the right of Arizona to ensure that only legitimate, legal residents of the state are allowed to vote in state elections (a position upheld by the USSC by the way)?

On June 11th at the Saddlebrooke Republican’s LD-11 Candidate Forum our opponent, Jo Grant said that she, “[w]ill not participate in crafting legislation that will embarrass Arizona”. What did she mean by that? We can only assume she was talking about any legislation that is appealed by a special interest group in the Courts, shows up in the national media or becomes the target of what is known as the “hecklers veto”. (The hecklers veto is the action taken by a vocal minority to shout down a person or issue they disagree with.)

Since Arizona is considered the freest state of the 50 by many, the US DOJ has made Arizona ground zero for the attack on “states rights” through litigation of every piece of legislation it can. If a candidate objects to writing legislation that is offensive to the DOJ, and groups that would block a US citizen from exercising any of the rights protected under our constitution, will that individual be dependable to represent your best interests against other special interests?

The establishment course of “going along to get along” is how we got to where we are today as a state and as a lost nation. If you’re not taking fire from the opposition, if you are not protecting the rights of everyone, then you are not doing your job.

Our Constitution is the Law of the land (capital L), everything that the Federal and State legislative branches “enact” is an Act, an Ordinance or a Statute. They are laws (lower case l) that do not supersede the Law of the land. In the 1886, Norton v. Shelby County case the USSC wrote, “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

The unabridged right of an individual to speak his or her mind, even if, especially if the speech is offensive, is an absolute right.

The unabridged right of the individual to live out his or her life, practicing their right of religious conscience as long as it does not interfere with the life, liberty or poverty of another is absolute.

The unabridged right of an individual to protect himself or herself from another or from a tyrant, is an absolute right.

The unabridged right of an individual to be secure in his or her home, and for their property and papers to be protected in their home, requiring a specific warrant for search and seizure is an absolute right.

The framers of our Constitution were clear about Enumerated Powers, and so passionate about the consent of the governed that they thought enough of the concept to enshrine it into our Bill of Rights. They called these rights out for emphasis. Anyone who will not argue “regularly and vigorously” for the position that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ought not be trusted with representation of We the People.